Karnataka High Court Upholds SOP for Pregnancy Cases Involving Minor Sexual Assault Survivors

The Karnataka High Court has taken note of a state government Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) designed to address pregnancies involving minor survivors of sexual assault. The framework brings together multiple government agencies to identify such cases early, provide counselling and facilitate safe medical intervention, particularly for children who may be unaware of their legal rights or fear social stigma.

Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav disposed of the petition on October 7, observing that the matter did not require further adjudication after the government notified the SOP in the state gazette on July 31.

The case arose from a petition filed on behalf of a 16-year-old girl seeking termination of her pregnancy at approximately 32 weeks. During the proceedings, the court had sought suggestions from the survivor, the state government and an amicus curiae to develop a framework for addressing such cases.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that being denied termination could violate the girl’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, including reproductive freedom, bodily autonomy, privacy and personal liberty. The counsel also highlighted the psychological trauma associated with continuing a pregnancy resulting from sexual assault.

SOP Establishes Monitoring, Child Protection and Consent Mechanisms

The court stated that the SOP would be monitored by a state-level committee and district-level Child Protection Coordination Committees. The framework will undergo annual review, while district magistrates can address grievances concerning delays or irregularities involving Child Welfare Committees, police and medical boards.

The court also addressed situations in which termination is medically unsuccessful or a child is born alive. If the survivor wishes to surrender the infant, the Child Welfare Committee must follow the prescribed procedures for surrender and adoption, ensuring appropriate care until the child is transferred to a specialised adoption agency or lawfully placed with a parent or guardian.

The state government was directed to bear the infant’s care expenses in cases covered by the court’s directions.

Further, the court instructed the Education Department to improve awareness of sexual and reproductive health rights among children aged five to 18 through schools, childcare institutions, adolescent-friendly health clinics and community settings. Educational materials must also be accessible to children with disabilities.

Emphasising the survivor’s autonomy, the court directed that the child’s wish regarding termination be recorded in writing. It stressed that the child’s informed choice and consent must remain paramount and free from coercion by family members, guardians or institutional authorities.